Homophobia - Double Standards?

[61653 HTAFC]

Inspired by the reaction to a comment I made about Brian Souter's beliefs on the West Coast Franchise thread, something occured to me...

I think most of us respect the rights of individuals to hold whatever beliefs they choose, even if those beliefs are ones we may find distasteful... and that as individuals we have the right to challenge those beliefs.

However I've noticed a double standard on this subject with regard to homophobia. This weekend, the footballer Andre Gray has been charged over tweets sent in 2012 of an alleged homophobic nature. Yet Brian Souter has not been challenged over his funding of "gay cure" organizations and his general beliefs which in my opinion have no place in the 21st century.

People often say that successful businesspeople should be seen as role models by young people, rather than footballers, pop stars, and the like. Yet we seem to hold the latter to much higher levels of scrutiny than the former despite the fact that they're unlikely to be educated to the same level.

So, does anyone else find this double standard rather incongruous?

 

[Harbornite]

It is a bit iffy but tweets from footballers tend to get more publicity than donations made by less well-known individuals like Mr Souter.

It reminds me of that saying, intolerance will not be tolerated. Were the tweets that bad, surely the only reason why someone should be charged for tweeting would be if they were threatening someone else or illegally sharing content. Having said that, using hashtags like burn and die could be seen as threatening...

The Football Association’s charge sheet against Andre Gray has been extended to include another potentially offensive message on the Twitter account that has left the Burnley striker facing the possibility of a considerable ban.

Gray has already been charged because of a number of homophobic and sexist slurs made from 9 January to 11 March 2012 but it has now emerged the FA is also taking disciplinary action against a post from July 2014, when he was a player at Brentford, that begins: “I hate lightys!”

“Lighty” is slang, often used in a derogatory sense, to describe a light-skinned person of mixed race and the FA’s disciplinary department has included that in the case against the striker, whose 23 goals last season helped Burnley win promotion to the Premier League and led to him being named the Championship’s player of the year.

Gray has until 6pm on Wednesday to respond to the FA’s charge of improper conduct and the “aggravating factor” that his comments refer to “sexual orientation and/or gender and/or colour and/or race”.

The statutory punishment for abuse of this nature on the pitch would be five matches but that does not apply to online comments and Chris Stokes, the Coventry City defender, received a one-match suspension after using the term “bunch of faggots” on Twitter while watching Chelsea’s Premier League match with Tottenham Hotspur on 2 May. Stokes, who admitted breaching FA rules, was also ordered to attend an FA education course, fined £1,000 and warned about his future conduct. However, Gray’s case is considered significantly more serious because of the sheer volume of tweets and their extreme wording. One read: “Is it me or are there gays everywhere? #Burn #Die #MakesMeSick”.

Gray deleted his Twitter account on Saturday. The 25-year-old, who was playing for non-league Hinckley United in 2012, apologised last weekend in a statement saying he had “worked incredibly hard to completely transform my life since that time”.

Gray has admitted being involved in gangs in Wolverhampton when he was younger but described himself as a changed man. “The tweets were posted four years ago when I was a completely different person to the man I am now. I was at a very different point in my life back then – one that I’ve worked hard to move on from.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/27/andre-gray-fa-charge-i-hate-lightys

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we need to be careful to differentiate between opinions (which should not be illegal, however extreme) and actions (which may need to be illegal to protect people from them).

There is then the middle ground of "hate speech" or incitement, which sort-of breaks the boundary, and is one I find it hard to square with my views in favour of free speech contrasted by the actual harm that "hate speech" can cause.

 

[Blamethrower]

I think we need to be careful to differentiate between opinions (which should not be illegal, however extreme) and actions (which may need to be illegal to protect people from them).

You are wise Mr Williams

I think everyone has at least 1 opinion that someone will find offensive, even many wouldn't admit it. It's all about "who" finds your opinion offensive and does it fit into society's unwritten rules of "who is allowed to be offended and restrict other peoples freedoms as a result of that offence"

Religion being a classic example

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You are wise Mr Williams

I think everyone has at least 1 opinion that someone will find offensive, even many wouldn't admit it. It's all about "who" finds your opinion offensive and does it fit into society's unwritten rules of "who is allowed to be offended and restrict other peoples freedoms as a result of that offence"

Religion being a classic example

Religion is a strange one- I personally have no religion, but respect the beliefs of those that do. However religion is often used as a justification for homophobic beliefs, particularly in the USA. It's as if prejudices backed up my texts written millennia ago are okay but if that prejudice is just a person's opinion it isn't.

I would argue though that Souter's homophobia is perhaps more harmful than Gray's. Tweets are just words, after all.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is no right NOT to be offended in this life. Being offended doesn't give you any special privileges, or the moral high ground, or the right to shut down that opinion by any means other than through reasoned argument.

There's a middle ground - which is rather messy - which is hate speech which does not cause direct harm. It may cause indirect harm, by creating a hateful culture, and we should not hesitate to point out vociferously to Andre Gray that he is wrong, a bigot, and a hypocrite. But, being charged for his views is probably counterproductive in the long run.

Opinions only die away when they are allowed to be heard, challenged, and found to be erroneous by other people.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There is no right NOT to be offended in this life. Being offended doesn't give you any special privileges, or the moral high ground, or the right to shut down that opinion by any means other than through reasoned argument.

There's a middle ground - which is rather messy - which is hate speech which does not cause direct harm. It may cause indirect harm, by creating a hateful culture, and we should not hesitate to point out vociferously to Andre Gray that he is wrong, a bigot, and a hypocrite. But, being charged for his views is probably counterproductive in the long run.

Opinions only die away when they are allowed to be heard, challenged, and found to be erroneous by other people.

I agree with this, and it does seem that football is about 20 years behind the rest of society on this matter. Only last season I was at the Huddersfield versus Brighton game when the chant of "You only sing when you're bumming!" rang out around the stand. It wasn't just a small group chanting this but hundreds of people, with kids joining in too.

I don't believe we should simply shut down bigots, because if we did how would we be able to identify them?

 

[J-2739]

I think we need to be careful to differentiate between opinions (which should not be illegal, however extreme) and actions (which may need to be illegal to protect people from them).

There is then the middle ground of "hate speech" or incitement, which sort-of breaks the boundary, and is one I find it hard to square with my views in favour of free speech contrasted by the actual harm that "hate speech" can cause.

This, 100%.

Free speech is a really good thing, but physical actions, no.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There is no right NOT to be offended in this life. Being offended doesn't give you any special privileges, or the moral high ground, or the right to shut down that opinion by any means other than through reasoned argument.

There's a middle ground - which is rather messy - which is hate speech which does not cause direct harm. It may cause indirect harm, by creating a hateful culture, and we should not hesitate to point out vociferously to Andre Gray that he is wrong, a bigot, and a hypocrite. But, being charged for his views is probably counterproductive in the long run.

Opinions only die away when they are allowed to be heard, challenged, and found to be erroneous by other people.

I think this is all rather naive, and doesn't really consider some important realities:

1) Offence does not occur in a vacuum, and nor is it simply hurt feelings. It is the counterpart to respect and decency, and those are things we should all strive to spread.

2) Discourse does not necessarily result in the optimal answer (particularly in the short-term). Demagogues and bigots do very well in countries where speech is extremely well-protected, although limitations on speech should not be authoritarian or arbitrary: they have to be with specific purpose and genuinely and demonstrably beneficial to society. Banning protests outside abortion clinics is a good example of this.

 

[AlterEgo]

Offence does not occur in a vacuum, and nor is it simply hurt feelings. It is the counterpart to respect and decency, and those are things we should all strive to spread.

But there is no right not to be offended, would you agree? If you are offended by something, then that is tough and part of life I'm afraid.

2) Discourse does not necessarily result in the optimal answer (particularly in the short-term). Demagogues and bigots do very well in countries where speech is extremely well-protected, although limitations on speech should not be authoritarian or arbitrary: they have to be with specific purpose and genuinely and demonstrably beneficial to society. Banning protests outside abortion clinics is a good example of this.

There is no such thing as an optimal answer. What we all consider right and decent varies from person to person. Shutting down protests outside abortion clinics is very well intended, but it is counterproductive in the long run. The "pro lifers" would soon lose support if a lot of people associated them with haranguing women going through that awful process.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But there is no right not to be offended, would you agree? If you are offended by something, then that is tough and part of life I'm afraid.

So people have no right to be treated with respect? That seems rather questionable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no such thing as an optimal answer. What we all consider right and decent varies from person to person. Shutting down protests outside abortion clinics is very well intended, but it is counterproductive in the long run. The "pro lifers" would soon lose support if a lot of people associated them with haranguing women going through that awful process.

There are optimal answers in achieving basic moral principles. How, precisely, is it counter-productive in the long-run? It's only counter-productive if you believe that it bolsters the support for anti-abortion campaigners, and you're completely ignoring the effects it has on those women in the process: the long-run is a great thing to aspire towards, but don't just ignore the collateral damage in the process.

You have a lot of faith in the idea that campaigning by things you disagree with will be dismissed by the majority of people. As I literally stated in the answer you replied to, human psychology isn't quite so simple. You're espousing naive Enlightenment ideals despite 250 years of evidence that things don't always work out that way: surely we should be looking for a more nuanced solution?

 

[J-2739]

So people have no right to be treated with respect? That seems rather questionable.

It's all part of freedom of speech. Different words mean different things to different people. So you'd like a limited speech zone like China or North Korea?

 

[AlterEgo]

So people have no right to be treated with respect? That seems rather questionable.

Sorry, but the right not to be offended and the right to be treated with respect are totally different things. One could say something respectfully, yet still cause offence, unintentionally. I agree that people shouldn't deliberately go out of their way to offend others, but that is something slightly different.

There are optimal answers in achieving basic moral principles. How, precisely, is it counter-productive in the long-run? It's only counter-productive if you believe that it bolsters the support for anti-abortion campaigners, and you're completely ignoring the effects it has on those women in the process: the long-run is a great thing to aspire towards, but don't just ignore the collateral damage in the process.

You have a lot of faith in the idea that campaigning by things you disagree with will be dismissed by the majority of people. As I literally stated in the answer you replied to, human psychology isn't quite so simple. You're espousing naive Enlightenment ideals despite 250 years of evidence that things don't always work out that way: surely we should be looking for a more nuanced solution?

"Optimal answers in achieving basic moral principles" - what are basic moral principles? Do they not differ from person to person, regardless of how the law of the land stands? Morals and the law are different of course, but linked.

What sort of nuanced solution do you have in mind? I'm afraid that if you drive ideas underground you make them more attractive to a lot of people - or at least that's my own experience anyway. I'm afraid I can only speak from my own experience of being offended myself, and having offended people.

If you are offended by something, then that is tough tit. There is far too much stock placed upon being a victim in modern society that I think we've gone too far that way and should strike a healthier balance. (No, this isn't a "PC is bad" thread - PC has done a lot for us.)

 

[Johnuk123]

Nobody has the right not to be offended to say otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[Blamethrower]

You're espousing naive Enlightenment ideals despite 250 years of evidence that things don't always work out that way: surely we should be looking for a more nuanced solution?

I find it unsurprising that you are offering the contrary view, practicing uni debating again?

Please describe what you think would be a more nuanced solution
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody has the right not to be offended to say otherwise is ridiculous.

you avatar offends me and I demand that you change it to a more neutral shade of beige.....

 

[EM2]

If you are offended by something, then that is tough tit.

No, it isn't. If you are offended by something that isn't directed at you, then you are maybe being a little...precious.
However, if you are the direct recipient of a comment, or a member of a group that is, then you certainly do have a right.
I don't know your name, or what you look like, but for argument's sake, let's say it's Tony and you wear size 14 shoes. If I said 'I hate all these people around called Tony, and especially the ones with big feet. They should all be deported or killed', you would have every right to be offended by that, wouldn't you?

 

[WelshBluebird]

This, 100%.

Free speech is a really good thing, but physical actions, no.

The problem is that certain speech can lead directly to physical actions. We have seen that in aftermath of the Brexit vote where some eejits took the vote as a vote in favour of them being able to abuse people openly in the street.

Speech does not exist on its own. It has very real consequences.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, it isn't. If you are offended by something that isn't directed at you, then you are maybe being a little...precious.
However, if you are the direct recipient of a comment, or a member of a group that is, then you certainly do have a right.
I don't know your name, or what you look like, but for argument's sake, let's say it's Tony and you wear size 14 shoes. If I said 'I hate all these people around called Tony, and especially the ones with big feet. They should all be deported or killed', you would have every right to be offended by that, wouldn't you?

You have a right to be offended but you do not have a right *not to be offended*. There is an important difference. People have every right to be offended but it does not mean you have a special privilege, or the moral high ground, etc etc.

Like every other human being I would be offended at a personal comment. The choice is then mine as to how I react.

 

[EM2]

Like every other human being I would be offended at a personal comment. The choice is then mine as to how I react.

So your earlier statement 'If you are offended by something, then that is tough tit' would be opposite to what you say here.

 

[J-2739]

The problem is that certain speech can lead directly to physical actions. We have seen that in aftermath of the Brexit vote where some eejits took the vote as a vote in favour of them being able to abuse people openly in the street.

Speech does not exist on its own. It has very real consequences.

I think many fail to remember how to use freedom of expression wisely and use that as an excuse to take unfair physical action. They feel privileged that they can say whatever spills out of there mouth.

 

[AlterEgo]

So your earlier statement 'If you are offended by something, then that is tough tit' would be opposite to what you say here.

Is it tough tit. The sum total of you being offended by something is just that - you are offended. Nothing more or less.

There are lots of offensive things on the Internet - even on this forum. If I am offended by them, so what?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Is it tough tit. The sum total of you being offended by something is just that - you are offended. Nothing more or less.

There are lots of offensive things on the Internet - even on this forum. If I am offended by them, so what?

What is offence to you?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Unless someone is threatening someone or a group directly, it's not hate speech in my opinion.
Souter funding a cure, how is that a problem, many people want to have childern, and a traditional life, it's not being forced on people by Souter. Somehow I expect some wouldn't see issue with the opposite were that true.
Andre Gray's comment, don't know who he is or what he said, but like I said above, if there's no threat, lies etc, what's the problem?

Despite the public shrifting opinion greatly in the last decade (TV exposure to the groups), there's still religious, scientific, and ethical concerns, however much ignored by people who use "hater" and other bullying terms, are still there undiscussed.

Hate against Travellers, muslims, people with Disabillities, or with weight problems / odd voices etc. are epidemic yet it seems few care for them
That's where the light needs to be shoon at the moment.

 

[AlterEgo]

What is offence to you?

Offence: annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself.

 

[Gutfright]

So people have no right to be treated with respect? That seems rather questionable.

Donald J Trump is a person. Should the government/ legal system preserve his "right to be treated with respect" by taking punitive action against people who mock him?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Offence: annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself.

That isn't what offence is.

Offence is what is experienced when there is an attack on your identity: be that dehumanisation, marginalisation or whatever. That cuts much deeper than someone calling you an insult.

The fact that most people think it's just annoyance or upset says a lot about why it's often dismissed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Donald J Trump is a person. Should the government/ legal system preserve his "right to be treated with respect" by taking punitive action against people who mock him?

Basic human respect is not deference or exemption from being mocked over anything at all.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Souter funding a cure, how is that a problem, many people want to have childern, and a traditional life, it's not being forced on people by Souter. Somehow I expect some wouldn't see issue with the opposite were that true.
Andre Gray's comment, don't know who he is or what he said, but like I said above, if there's no threat, lies etc, what's the problem?

Uh, it's a problem for a very great reason - sexual orientation and gender identities are not diseases and to use language like "cure" pathologises it.

When it comes down to it, finding a "cure" for the dreaded gay doesn't mean scientists in a laboratory isolating genes and identifying genetic triggers; it means reparative therapy. Reparative therapy is harmful, it's abusive, and is often forced upon young children and teens - usually by Christian families. You may as well try and find a cure for divorce while you're at it.

 

[AlterEgo]

That isn't what offence is.

Offence is what is experienced when there is an attack on your identity: be that dehumanisation, marginalisation or whatever. That cuts much deeper than someone calling you an insult.

The fact that most people think it's just annoyance or upset says a lot about why it's often dismissed.

I'm afraid that's your definition and not the dictionary's, so you're talking about something entirely different to me.

 

[Gutfright]

Basic human respect is not deference or exemption from being mocked over anything at all.

So mocking people isn't disrespectful?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm afraid that's your definition and not the dictionary's, so you're talking about something entirely different to me.

Yes, and what I'm talking about is far more pertinent than "annoyance". Think the difference between using an insult and using a slur - why is one hate and one not?

Pedantry is dull, and derails the conversation. Can we actually get to the point? The dictionary is also descriptive and not prescriptive: otherwise academics could always point to the dictionary and go "look it's right here" when asking any question at all about a concept. Clearly that would be absurd.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So mocking people isn't disrespectful?

There is a difference between the casual use of the word 'respect' which we might use in the workplace, and the word 'respect' as pertaining to dignity or decency.

I'm getting at the latter.